Hi Hugo, On 1 Jun 2021, at 10:05, Hugo Salgado <hsalg...@nic.cl> wrote:
> On 13:20 01/06, Peter van Dijk wrote: > >> I like this. I suspect defining it well for answers from resolvers to >> clients would open up a big can of worms that could kill the draft, >> like many other drafts that have been crushed under the sheer weight of >> scope creep. > > Yes, fair enough. Furthermore, the draft currently avoids talking about > "client" and uses "querier", which from the authoritative point of view > could be a debugging human or a resolver. Some DNS documents have used the words "initiator" and "responder" to describe the actors involved in either side of an exchange of DNS messages. That might be worth considering. I agree that avoiding the complication of caches makes sense. Perhaps linking the behaviour to AA header bit processing would be useful. An individual DNS server might be principally a resolver by function but might also respond authoritatively (AA=1) to some queries. Those queries ought to be in-scope for your mechanism, I think. Joe
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
